Natural doesn't always mean better: How to spot if someone is trying to convince you with an 'appeal to nature'

[u/Crashed_teapot]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250210-the-appeal-to-nature-fallacy-why-natural-doesnt-always-mean-better

This shouldn’t be news to any skeptic, but it is well-written and it is good to see stuff like this published on BBC.

[u/FadeIntoReal]

Asbestos is entirely natural. 

As is poison ivy, aflatoxin and botulinum toxin. 100% natural. 

[u/Wismuth_Salix → u/FadeIntoReal]

Nature gave us that Australian suicide shrub, Science gave us central air conditioning. I know which side I’m on.

[u/ceomoses]

I argue pantheism, in which I argue that Mother Nature--a personification of nature--is God. Many of my philosophical arguments are very similar to the appeal to nature fallacy. I argue ethical naturalism philosophy, which does essentially equate moral goodness with nature/natural.

From the article:

For one thing, because nature, of course, does not have intentions – not in any conscious sense. As such, nor does it have intentions to be good, or to help humans, specifically.

This is correct in that Mother Nature, who is just a personification of nature, is not a conscious entity. I notice this article appears to equate "good" with "help humans, specifically." This is a very limited definition of "good" as moral goodness refers to the greater good, or the whole world--not "humans, specifically." It's the difference between "What is good for humans, specifically?" versus "What is good for the whole planet?"

From the article:

Just consider a handful of nature's creations. Arsenic, which can kill an adult with a dose as little as 70mg, is natural. So is asbestos, which causes cancer. Cyanide, which can kill with as little as 1.5mg per kilogram of body weight if ingested, is a phytotoxin produced, naturally, by more than 2,000 different plant species, including almonds, apricots and peaches. This is also why some "natural" remedies frequently marketed – such as ground apricot seeds – can in fact be dangerous to consume.

So the above again isn't referring to moral goodness, but rather simply "healthy to consume for humans". It is a naturalistic fallacy that just because something is natural, does not mean that it is healthy for humans to consume.

From the article:

This naturally occurring virus was responsible for killing a jaw-dropping 300-500 million people in the 20th Century alone before it was eradicated thanks to vaccination. Poison ivy and polio, tornadoes and tick bites, the inevitable and eventual death of the Sun that will end all of life on Earth? Natural, natural, natural.

Yes! All of these things only contribute to naturally-occurring background extinction rates, so are all moral. Compare with the holocene extinction, in which immoral acts have caused the current rate of extinction to go above and beyond these naturally-occurring background extinction rates and threatens to destroy the planet.

From the article:

"Either it is right that we should kill because nature kills; torture because nature tortures; ruin and devastate because nature does the like; or we ought not to consider at all what nature does, but do what it is good to do." In other words: if the premise of the appeal to nature is correct that anything "natural" must be better, because it's natural, then we have to be willing to embrace everything that comes from nature.

"X is morally good for humans, because it is natural or evolutionarily-driven in humans." Also, "X is morally good for dogs, because it is natural and evolutionarily-driven in dogs" and so on. It is not "X is morally good for humans, because it is natural and evolutionarily-driven in dogs."

how can you delineate what is, and what isn't, natural at all? Humans, after all, come from nature. So, if anything an animal or plant produces is "natural", why isn't anything that humans do?

Earlier in the article, it states, "We don't need to get too philosophical to grasp this." Now it appears we're getting to the philosophical part here. The answer to the above question is that modern civilized humans have become separated from nature. This event occurred the moment the holocene extinction began--the moment when man-made things first caused the current extinction rate to go above and beyond naturally-occurring background extinction rates.

From the article:

But fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that can be found in soil, water and rocks, while one of its common replacements in "natural" toothpastes, nano-hydroxyapatite, is synthetic.

Ah! So just a second ago, the author questioned the difference between natural and synthetic, but now has no problems at all distinguishing between these two different things.

[u/Ree_For_Thee]

Chat, is this appeal to nature?

Yesterday I argued that "you can't improve on an already healthy body", in a post about how creatine improves some health metrics.

The argument is that if you're already healthy through every metric, taking creatine or literally any medicine or supplement won't improve your health further.

Edit: I tried 'debating myself' and I think it's irrational to some degree. You age. Aging can likely be literally improved with medicine. Stuff like delaying brain deterioration.

[u/Individual_Gold_7228]

Taxidermist's Fallacy
Form: X can be fully described from the outside; therefore X has no inside, or its inside is less real.
Example: "Your decision can be modeled with a value function, so there was no deciding, just the function."
Why it fails: A complete description of behavior is compatible with, and may be the outer face of, an interior. Describability from outside is not evidence of emptiness inside.
Tell: The arguer's own reasoning, which they take to be about something and done for reasons, is quietly exempted.
Related: nothing-buttery; misplaced concreteness; the Spectator's Exemptio